unfortunately lead some fanatical restorers to raise drivetrains up to the body with the front sheetmetal already installed following your instruction to the letter... 100% correct for an LA car but laughable for a Norwood car.I mean to tell you some Guys actually did this type of restoration and it was 100% wrong for a NOR build.

Two questions (that Warren asked above):I'm confused. Both Phil and Tom say that people followed the assembly article and misassembled their NOR cars. Can you please explain how you could tell in a finished car?

Other than this detail in the differences in the plants, are there other known issues in John's article? So far, you've just attacked it. Why not discuss issues with it, if there are any?

we are all just people after all and we need to bear in mind that to be a true patroit of a cause,one needs to be constructive not destructive.i would never have reserectied this topic if i didn`t have something in it i valued and wanted to share.just to show that something so trival can be the one special thing that rings true to the heart. Hurts to have it blasted when you try to share what made it important to you in the first place .this 6 page monster i see here, it demonizes both , as in arguing with a fool , but i see no fools here.i care not what cred you think you have .i want to judge not ,least ye be judged. only hope that what is shared here is productive human endevor...thanks.... i end my particpation on this topic

" I have personally been belittled by ALL CRG guys ( except for John whose been very nice to me )on many occasions.. "

I don't know or care who you are, or what you know. I have never belittled you, or festival. I was planning to order the book, but if the contents are anything like the contents of this thread, I don't want a copy.Jumping on line and making statements that everyone else is wrong, and you are right, just buy my book and see for yourself, may sell a few copies. I can only presume that is the sole purpose of your postings here, because of the total lack of evidence to back the claims that have been posted.

You are welcome to your opinions, but based on what I have seen to date, you will never see a purchase from me.

Why haven't the Norwood guys and gals chimed in...in the past or now? Especially in the past if procedures were not expressed to there recollection?

I think this is a valid question, keep in mind most of these folks did this as a job and may not actively be in hobby, they would also be 43+/- years older and perhaps do not utilize technology like some of us do. It also took someone to organize them, spend his own money, interview each one of them and translate that information into a book and I am sure this was not easy to do. I have always been a person that tries to see the other side of the story as well. I have read this string and there might be a legitimate reason why Phil may not be able to answer specific questions or provide examples from his book, maybe publishers/distributors don't want to see that...No idea if his information is correct or inaccurate but with anything else in life you will need to decide for yourself. Personally, being in the hobby actively for a few years and still learning I would order a copy of the book and see for myself.

I'd like to apologize to all the members of this forum who think they are " CRG Guys " My verb-age was directed strictly to the " Core Members" (for lack of a better word) or better: The guys that can actually see the data base and make decisions.. Not just posting active members...

To the fellows that do not understand, I agree that all finished Camaros look alike and that its the restoration and journey getting there that matters to hard corel Camaro restorers... I am sorry you don't understand that aspect.. It very rewarding to attempt to restore in the same sequence Chevy did.. I realize many of you don't restore.. I should have realized your cyber only. Again.. sorry

Tom, I didn't realize that GM sanded and filled the subframes, then painted them with a Polyurethane paint system, as your car was. What part of a proper "restoration" document was that posted in? Your car is VERY nice, much nicer than mine, and probably way nicer than it was when it rolled out the door 46 years ago, but if we're going to start the proper restoration discusiions, why don't we start there. What is an acceptable deviation from "factory" before a restoration becomes a restificaton? I know mine falls into the second, not because there is anything non stock about it, but because of how its been repainted, options added that it didn't have originally, etc.

Phil, how did the enamel paint testing go, any of the retirees remember painting the 03C cars that way?

Note these are not attacks, (unless some part of them are not true) just questions about the process.

Hey Tom do me a favor and tell me how this car was put together. You said we restore our cars incorrectly. What do I need to do to make it right. I'm losing sleep and it has me on the verge of a breakdown. I know it's only a few pictures but maybe you can tell since your up on all the details from Norwood.

Good Morning guys.. Well my Pacer thats finished was done to " drive" and practice on for when I do my Festival car.. Thanks for the compliments on my first attempt.. I think it came out great and is quite a nod to all that Happened those months in Indy... I like it but I built it my way

My friend Gary Bieler on the other hand built his Norwood car following John Z's recollections of the plant he visited in 69 so he could live the experience as best he could.. He spent an abundance of time building it Los Angeles style and should be apologized to by all of you for being so insistent that John was right all those years with zero wavering...Thats why at my site we at least try most of the time to be open minded about changes and unkowns

The enamel thing is going SLOWLY with no reasons exposed to date as to why that or something else so special happened that they stopped Pacer production completely the following week.. OR it took that next week to finish the 03C's.. I can't wait to someday find the truth.. you on the other hand already know it couldn't happen because you were there I suppose

I have a picture of Garys endeavor that I will post if needed..

tmodel66? no.. the end results are the same.. You of course have no interest in building them trying to follow the Norwood timeline.. and thats OK.. funny why all of you loved the timeline so much though... I guess up until recently?

Tom, I didn't realize that GM sanded and filled the subframes, then painted them with a Polyurethane paint system, as your car was. What part of a proper "restoration" document was that posted in? Your car is VERY nice, much nicer than mine, and probably way nicer than it was when it rolled out the door 46 years ago, but if we're going to start the proper restoration discusiions, why don't we start there. What is an acceptable deviation from "factory" before a restoration becomes a restificaton? I know mine falls into the second, not because there is anything non stock about it, but because of how its been repainted, options added that it didn't have originally, etc.

Phil, how did the enamel paint testing go, any of the retirees remember painting the 03C cars that way?

Note these are not attacks, (unless some part of them are not true) just questions about the process.

Mark,

I will let Tom speak to his portion of your question that addresses him.

Your contention (years ago when I was doing the 03-C Paint research) was that a build like that was technically impossible. You contended that the cars could have not have been painted in any other paint system other than Lacquer at the factory. Your conclusion was based in part on your understanding of the assembly process - and a contention that a car could not ever have been assembled without paint - therefore any other paint system other than lacquer from GM was impossible.

Some additional information: Multiple workers and supervisors recall from time to time small batches of cars where the paint line was "inactive" meaning cars went through and were not painted. These cars were assembled entirely through to the final line wearing only the prime coat and painted later.

For those of you with the book turn to page 89 where the GM Build documentation is shown directing the factory to build just such a car. "VEHICLE NOT TO BE PAINTED SHIP IN PRIME"

Come on, its been 5 years now. My contention about it not being possible came about because you said they just painted them in enamel, shut down the drying tunnels, and let the enamel painted cars go thru without regard to the other 912 cars being built on that day. I don't beleive we ever got into a car being made and not painted a finish color at all, as the other cars have never been of interest to you. By your own data you know the PC's arrived at the GM side spaced about 8 to 15 apart or more (don't forget they were making non Pace car convertibles at the same time so some may be spaced 20, 30 or 50 apart from one another) , so you know there we regular cars interspaced between the PCs and they could not have been built in a 50 car group (ie one after the other) so the ovens gould not have been shutdown so some enamel painted cars could pass. I had asked where GM could have painted 50 some odd cars in enamel, and was told that the mechanics of how it was done was not important, just that it was done. I beleive that was when I got tossed from your site, I guess I sort of said the emporer had no cloths, and now all of sudden there is one car (maybe there are others) shipped in prime and that now applies to the PCs. It's possible I suppose but there has never been a story of the PCs being shipped in prime and painted elsewhere so I would think tying one build to another is going to be a stretch.